[ad_1]
In January last year, Ewelina Rauch updated her CV after a recruiter from her agency told her that she might be interested in a 23-month contract.
A week later, she told them she was pregnant.
On the same day, he received an email stating that his name would no longer show up for work.
“As for the role, it’s a 23-month contract. We can propose it for shorter roles until May ”, he said.
She describes the way she was treated as “ruthless”.
“They could see that I really needed a job, I really needed every penny,” he said.
“I felt it was cruel because I was in the most vulnerable place being pregnant.
“I needed the money for my baby. My partner is a chef and he doesn’t make that much money. I felt really depressed. “
Since then, he has received € 20,000 from the Workplace Relations Commission.
Adjudication Officer Gaye Cunningham ordered La Creme Recruitment to make payment “for the anguish suffered as a result of the discrimination against her.”
She found that she suffered a “clear example of discrimination” because of her pregnancy or the need to take maternity leave.
Originally from Poland, Ms Rauch had lived in England but left due to Brexit.
“It was quite intimidating to be without representation and I had never been in court,” he said.
“I used to see Keir Starmer in the House of Commons, as he was a human rights lawyer, to get advice and help from a prominent person in Citizen Information Services in Limerick.
“I would be very happy if this case helped people in similar situations.”
She hopes the government will change the rules to give politicians a clear right to maternity leave due to difficulties recently raised with Justice Minister Helen McEntee.
“Why haven’t they seen it coming before?” she asked.
At a hearing last year, the agency, represented by Ibec, said the recruiter had congratulated her when she told them she was pregnant.
He said it was mentioned that the 23-month role would involve six to nine months of training.
The agency argued that after this, the recruiter reviewed the job description for the position and found that it did not meet three of the four skills or the required level of experience.
It was decided not to apply for the position.
The recruiting agency denied that it discriminated against her.
She provided a table of eight female candidate assignments during their pregnancies.
Ms. Rauch said at the hearing that she felt she had been treated as a “minor” because of her pregnancy.
The adjudicator did not accept the recruiter’s decision that she was not suitable for the position – which was communicated to her the same day she revealed that she was pregnant – “it was taken in complete separation from the fact of the complainant’s pregnancy.”
In a statement, La Creme said that it is a responsible and caring company and an employer and recruiter that offers equal opportunities in all aspects of its operations.
“We affirm that we do not discriminate in any way in this matter and that continues to be our position,” he said.
“We are disappointed with the outcome of this case, however, in the interest of closure, we have decided not to appeal the outcome of the award.”
Irish independent
[ad_2]